Standard 2: Planning and Evaluation
Planning
Description
Comprehensive and broad-based strategic planning is central to SCSU's planning processes. The current University Strategic Plan (2007-2012) (USP) was the result of an 18-month planning process that involved the participation of more than 150 campus members, representing all facets of the institution. Additionally, input was sought from a wide variety of others through focus groups, e-surveys, and town hall meetings. The university's mission and USP serve as reference points for institutional planning at all levels. Several key committees with broad-based representation are responsible for providing input to the President and Cabinet regarding institutional planning. The President established the University Strategic Planning Review Committee (USPaRC) in 2008 to monitor the progress of the implementation of the USP and make recommendations to the President. The 22-member committee represents all facets of the university, including faculty, staff, and students. The University Budget and Planning Committee (UBPC) is charged with making recommendations concerning the university's annual funding priorities, annual operating and capital budget requests, and spending plan allocations in a manner consistent with the university's mission and strategic plan. This 14-member committee includes three vice presidents, a dean, faculty, staff, and a student representative. Information regarding planning is broadly available in a variety of venues, including the university's Website, periodic presidential dialogues, and town meetings. These venues also present opportunities for the university community to provide feedback and suggestions.
Since fall 2007, all major expenditures and strategic initiatives have been explicitly tied to the USP. For example, as part of the budgeting process, the function of each unit is assessed against the university's mission and strategic priorities. This alignment is reflected in the spending plan that is presented to the System Office and the Board of Trustees.
In fall 2008, planning to address the anticipated severe budget cuts as a result of the state's fiscal crisis, the President convened several joint meetings of the USPaRC and the UBPC, charging the group with developing a set of guidelines to be considered when the university would have to make budget cuts. This was to ensure that the university's mission and priorities were reflected in the budgeting process. The result was a set of guiding principles, now used by the President's Cabinet in constructing budget scenarios as we plan for even deeper budget cuts in the next two years.
Facilities master planning is described in detail in Standard 8.
The Enrollment Management Council (EMC), co-chaired by the Provost and Vice President for Student and University Affairs and comprised of major stakeholders in the enrollment process, is a key planning entity. The EMC, first convened in 2006, is charged with setting enrollment and retention goals and overseeing policies and procedures related to student success. The EMC's work is informed by the university's mission, core values, and USP. For example, consistent with the USP focus on student success, the EMC recommended significant changes in the process for awarding financial aid, including allocating a specific amount for graduate students. Similarly, EMC members developed A Guide for First-Year Students and A Guide for Transfer Students, which communicate essential information to incoming students.
With the university mission and USP as guides, planning at the divisional level occurs similarly. For example, in the division of Academic Affairs, the Deans' Council, led by the Provost, is responsible for academic planning, with input from faculty. Currently, a draft Academic Program Plan identifies areas of potential growth, possible new programs, programs that may need to be discontinued, along with current and future resource needs.
Divisions have developed strategic plans consistent with the USP. For example, the Office of Information Technology (OIT) has developed a three-year strategic plan that comprehensively addresses educational and administrative needs of the institution. The plan covers continuous development and improvement of OIT structure and communication with all campus constituents; technology systems and infrastructure; student, faculty and staff support services; system-wide applications; security and safety measures and disaster recovery; and teaching/learning technology access and applications. An advisory committee with membership determined through shared governance procedures provides feedback.
The Diversity and Equity Leadership Council (DELC), created in 2008, was charged with the task of drafting recommendations to the president for a university-wide Diversity Action Plan (DAP) in accordance with USP Goal F, "Foster a climate that respects and celebrates diversity." The Plan, currently in draft form, focuses on several objectives: developing a shared and inclusive understanding of diversity; creating a welcoming campus climate for all individuals; incorporating diversity into the strategic planning for each academic and support unit; bringing the diversity structure into a stronger relationship with established university government structures; and developing recruitment efforts for groups that remain most underrepresented in all areas of the university. The draft plan has been communicated to the campus community for review; revisions have been made based on feedback. The DELC will resubmit to the campus for adoption in fall 2011.
Appraisal
Southern has a history of having a number of planning groups with broad university-wide participation. However, as was pointed out in our 2001 self-study, these groups were not always well coordinated nor their work well integrated into the budget planning process. Particularly since 2006-07, we have made significant strides in coordinating institutional planning and in integrating this planning with resource allocation. The 2007-2012 USP and mission statement now serve as focal points for planning and resource allocation at the institutional as well as divisional and unit levels. This is exemplified by the guiding principles for budget development developed by the joint USPaRC and Budget and Planning groups as well as by strategic planning at the division and department levels.
USPaRC has struggled somewhat to meet its charge of monitoring the USP. The committee did not have clearly articulated guidelines for exactly how monitoring is to be accomplished, and this created some frustration. Communication to the campus community about the status of the USP has not been systematic, and the strategic planning Website has not been updated on a regular basis.
The status of the USP's major initiatives was updated in April 2010 and April 2011. In May 2011, the joint USPaRC and UBPC made recommendations regarding priorities for the upcoming two years. These priorities, accepted by the President and Cabinet, are aligned with the USP and reflect four broad themes: focus on student success through strategic enrollment management; identify and market SCSU's distinctiveness and signature programs; increase revenue-generating activities; maximize use of existing resources through better communication and "cross-fertilization."
The EMC has become an effective planning and policy body. For example, prior to 2006, coordinated enrollment planning was significantly more difficult. The success of the EMC comes from having individuals who are empowered to make decisions "at the table" as well as the cross-department and unit communication that is facilitated at the meetings and the related operations groups.
Despite the budget crisis, OIT has developed and implemented plans and programs to support student access and learning as detailed in its strategic plan (e.g., SMART program to supply students with computers, student email migration to Live@EDU for increased email capacity) and faculty use of technology (e.g., all courses available on eLearning Vista; offered faculty technology training and Technology Innovation Award small grant for faculty). On the administrative side, OIT has developed and implemented security management systems (most up-to-date anti-virus protection for computers and installation of security cameras in telecom closets and parking lots); supports for Phase I of disaster recovery; and new student orientation online application to support enrollment management.
Projections
Given the increasingly difficult budget challenges SCSU faces, it is clear that the university will not be able to accomplish everything in its USP. Thus, it is more important than ever to prioritize and modify the plan as needed to maintain (if not move ahead) the academic enterprise. Rather than embark on a new full-scale strategic planning process for 2012, SCSU needs to "tune" the current USP. USPaRC will continue to monitor the current USP and make recommendations for modification. As departments construct their budgets for the next several years, it will be crucial to use the guiding principles for decision-making and resource allocation. Continued joint meetings of USPaRC and UBPC will help to maintain the alignment between the USP and resource allocation. USPaRC will communicate regularly with the campus community through an updated Website and periodic town hall meetings.
With the magnitude of the anticipated budget cuts and the relatively small amount of the budget that is discretionary (see Standard 9 for details), just decreasing expenditures will not be sufficient to make the required cuts (currently estimated at 15%). Thus, increasing enrollment is one strategy for increasing revenue. The EMC will play a key role in developing and successfully implementing these plans.
The academic program plan will be finalized in fall 2011. In planning for the budget cuts to come, it is especially important to eliminate nonessential programs and operations while promoting programs that will help SCSU increase its enrollment in targeted areas.
OIT will continue to address academic and administrative technology needs as staffing and budgetary constraints allow.
Evaluation
Description
Keeping the USP and its mission in mind, SCSU regularly undertakes a variety of evaluation and assessment activities at the institutional, divisional, and program levels. To highlight the importance of these activities and to signal the university's commitment, the Office of Assessment and Planning was established in 2004 with a coordinator (faculty member on 75% reassigned time). In 2006, an associate coordinator was added. In 2007, an associate vice president position was created and filled to lead the office. The Office of Assessment and Planning coordinates institutional-level assessment and evaluation; provides technical assistance, support and coordination services to divisions and programs; works closely with Office of Management, Information, and Research (which houses SCSU's IR function); maintains archival assessment and evaluation data; and disseminates assessment and evaluation information to the campus community.
The university participates in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) and was an "early adopter" of the College Portrait. As part of its participation, SCSU administers the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) (completed second year of administration in spring 2011). Results indicate that SCSU seniors scored above expected levels.
SCSU has participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) annually since 2005. Our response rates have been consistently higher than the national average, so that we have reasonable confidence in our results. As the university has instituted several major initiatives, most notably a comprehensive First-Year Experience Program in 2007, first-year students' engagement scores have increased in a number of areas. For example, we have noted statistically significant increases in the NSSE benchmark areas of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, and student-faculty interaction. Analyses of NSSE results are completed by academic school and program (when at least 20 students have completed the survey) and trends over time are studied. An annual comprehensive report that includes the current year's results along with tracking of trends over time as well as departmental and school reports is distributed to deans, academic departments, student affairs directors, the EMC, and Cabinet, and is published on the Office of Assessment and Planning Website. Presentations are made to various student, faculty, and staff groups on request. In addition, special analyses are conducted on specific populations (e.g., students with disabilities, Honors College students) upon request.
The Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) has been administered to incoming first-year students at New Student Orientation since 2004. These data have provided an important profile of our incoming students' high school experiences along with their expectations for the first year of college. This information has been useful in a number of ways, e.g., providing faculty development (new faculty orientation, annual teaching academy, FYE academy, etc.); providing individual profiles that First-Year seminar instructors use in academic advisement; and providing a baseline for examining the impact of campus initiatives. Using BCSSE, NSSE, and other data, we are following cohorts of students longitudinally to help us better understand which students are successful at the university (and why) and how we can better identify early on students who may be at risk so that we can intervene.
Locally developed surveys and focus groups are used periodically to collect information when needed. For example, in preparation for this self-study, the steering committee found that it did not have sufficient information on several relevant topics, (e.g., the campus community's perception of the university's mission statement and its use in decision-making, use of and satisfaction with library resources.) Focus groups and short institution-wide surveys were created and administered to collect this information.
The division of Student and University Affairs has adopted the standards of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) as the basis for assessing its various units. The CAS standards are consistent with the learning outcomes identified for undergraduate students (see matrix). In 2009, the division identified the need for developing an assessment process as a priority, and division representatives attended the CAS National Symposium on Standards, Self-Assessment, and Student Learning Outcomes in Higher Education. Beginning in January 2010 with a day-long assessment workshop on campus for division staff, a work group was formed to develop student learning outcomes and an overall assessment plan. To support assessment efforts and data collection, in summer 2010, the division contracted with a nation-wide assessment company, Student Voice, gaining access to professional advisers and a comprehensive platform for assessment in higher education.
The implementation phase of the university's undergraduate program review process was initiated fall 2008 following a two-year development and approval process. The plan called for a peer review process using the Undergraduate Curriculum Forum's Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC) to review 35 currently existing undergraduate programs in a five-year cycle. A three-year phased-in implementation was used. Departments prepare a self-study that responds to and provides evidence for 17 standards, including the collection and use of student learning outcome data (see Standard 4 for further discussion). During the first year, programs responded to Standards 1-3 (mission, goals/objectives, and measurable/measured student outcomes); during the second year, programs responded to Standards 1-9. Beginning in fall 2010 (third year of implementation), programs responded to all 17 standards. In addition, the self-study process includes an external site visit review. For departments that do not hold disciplinary accreditation, this requirement was effective beginning fall 2010. To date, the departments of theatre, geography, and world languages and literatures have completed external reviews.
From fall 2008 through spring 2011, 20 programs completed program reviews. This represents 42% of undergraduate programs. Seventeen (85%) of these programs were granted continuing approval; three (15%) were granted conditional approval, with 11 months to address needs areas and submit revisions to PRAC.
Graduate programs have had a long-standing program review process on a five-year cycle overseen by the Academic Standards Committee of the Graduate Council. All graduate programs must submit a self-study that provides evidence of compliance with 17 standards. Between fall 2005 and spring 2010, 39 program reviews were completed by the Academic Standards Committee. Of these, 27 programs received continuing approval from the Graduate Council, 10 programs received conditional approval, and two were not recommended for approval. Programs receiving conditional approval have one year to address deficient areas.
An assessment body that cuts across programs is the Unit Assessment Board (UAB). Comprised of 18 faculty members and three administrators from the Schools of Education and Arts and Sciences, the UAB involves all departments that have teacher certification programs. Evolving from an articulation committee first constituted in 1998 to develop links between Arts and Sciences and Education faculty and a common conceptual framework underlying all teacher preparation programs, the UAB was established in 2004. Geographically, the faculty of the School of Education and Arts and Sciences are split between two academic buildings on opposite ends of the campus. This physical separation sometimes leads to a professional and social separation as well. The UAB meets monthly to plan formative and summative assessments to measure students' academic achievement and progress and to evaluate the outcomes of the planning.
External, disciplinary accreditation is held by SCSU programs from: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT), American Chemical Society, American Counseling Association Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), American Library Association (ALA), Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP), Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE), Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, Computing Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Council on Academic Accreditation of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH), Council on Social Work Education, National Association of School Psychology (NASP), and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Several programs are investigating the feasibility of applying for accreditation. The School of Business has developed a multi-year plan focused on gaining accreditation from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).
Appraisal
Over the past few years, SCSU has developed the infrastructure to meet the university's assessment and evaluation needs with the creation and staffing of the Office of Assessment and Planning. For example, the university has significantly improved its data collection and analysis ability for the assessment of its NCATE-accredited teacher preparation programs. This past year, the university switched from a home-grown database (Oracle-based) to Tk20, a commercial Web-based assessment system for students and faculty. With the previous system, a program coordinator was required to enter in all the student outcome data on behalf of the faculty in the program. Now, faculty members generate their own data by scoring student assignments completed within the Tk20 program. This has significantly increased efficiency and data quality. While there was a steep learning curve for some faculty, the transition was facilitated by the conceptual work on an assessment system prior to Tk20 implementation and the sharing of information at UAB meetings. Other programs (e.g., social work, business) are also looking for technological solutions for assessment. While this is a positive trend and signals SCSU's maturing assessment process, it will put a strain on staff resources.
The UAB took advantage of the switch to a new assessment system to respond to NCATE reviews of unit and program assessments, and to implement changes based on analyses of student outcome data. The UAB's scrutiny of revised and new assessments resulted in assessments that are aligned with national and state standards. New assessments developed by the UAB include an assessment to measure our students' impact on K-12 student learning, a new clinical field experience assessment completed by faculty, a new student teaching evaluation completed by cooperating teachers, and the school context worksheet that requires our students to learn more about the schools and classrooms in which they conduct their field experiences.
In the most recent NCATE visit to campus (2009), not only did we meet all six NCATE national standards, we received two areas of commendations: our assessment system and the strength of our faculty. The NCATE team was impressed with the faculty's knowledge of assessment, the ways it was integrated into the unit, and the evidence provided regarding how programs have actually used the data to make decisions.
As the undergraduate program review and assessment process has been phased in, it became obvious that there were too many programs reviewed in the timeframe. The university is committed to the peer review process, so it became necessary to modify the review schedule. The timeline as it was initially set out compromised PRAC's obligation for careful and thoughtful program review, and compromised PRAC's ability to be an effective communicator with departments. Thus, the UCF approved a seven-year cycle rather than the five-year review cycle originally envisioned at the start of the process. Additionally, programs with disciplinary accreditation now undergo a modified review by PRAC.
The Graduate Council's process for review is taken seriously by academic programs and administration. However, it does not currently require an external perspective for programs that do not hold disciplinary accreditation. The current standards also do not require programs to be explicit about how they use assessment results to make instructional and curricular changes.
Since January 2010, a portion of each Student Affairs division meeting has been dedicated to discussions on assessment procedures and problems that may arise with data collection. Implementation of assessment processes in the division is currently uneven, with some units having developed strategic plans and student learning outcomes (e.g., Residence Life) and other units being less developed. The purchase of Student Voice as a tool to facilitate data collection and analysis will be helpful, but there is a learning curve as units need to develop strategies to embed assessment into their operations. Webinars, lectures and conference calls sponsored by Student Voice will assist in the training of directors and their staffs in survey development, rubrics, and data collection methods to assess student learning outcomes.
While all academic programs, and now, Student Affairs areas are participating in regular assessment and evaluation, SCSU does not yet have in place systematic, regular assessment of other functional units. Although there has been periodic assessment of other units (e.g., library services, IT) and SCSU regularly collects satisfaction data from students about a number of areas, the university needs a regular assessment cycle and process for all non-academic units.
Projection
The Graduate Council will strengthen its standard on use of assessment data and require that programs provide evidence that student learning outcome data is used by the department for academic decision-making. Additionally, the Council will add a requirement for external review of programs that do not hold external accreditation. In order to increase efficiency and better deploy scarce resources, graduate programs with external accreditation will prepare a modified self-study for the Graduate Council (format to be determined by the Council).
As program-level assessment efforts become more sophisticated, the need for additional support for Tk20 or another data collection/e-portfolio solution has become increasingly obvious. Given the hiring freeze and budget shortfalls, SCSU will have to develop creative solutions to meet this need.
Implementation of assessment in Student Affairs units on a wide scale, and incorporation of those results into the university's overall planning, is a priority. The interim vice president for student and university affairs, in collaboration with department heads, will implement an annual review of the mission statement and goals of the division beginning in fall 2011. The division will conduct a review of the survey instruments administered by each Student Affairs department to evaluate the quality and relevance of the questions and establish some uniformity where appropriate. The data collection process in individual departments and the utilization of the data to guide changes in each department's operations, budgets and delivery of services will be overseen by the division's recently formed research work group. With the purchase of Student Voice software, data results from BCSSE, NSSE, the two-part FYE Self-Assessment Survey and the New Student Orientation Student Survey will be important for review and analysis. Department heads will be expected to assess the data's relevance to the operations and delivery of services by their respective departments, along with recommendations for changes and improvements.
A plan for developing systematic, regularly scheduled assessment of all functional units will be developed during the 2011-2012 year.
Institutional Effectiveness
Planning and evaluation are complementary and interrelated processes that have been embedded into the university's culture over the past several years. The planning, development, and evaluation of the First-Year Experience Program, further described in Standards 4 and 6, provides one example of this cultural shift in the university's operations. With its mission at the center and the strategic plan as its blueprint, the university has built a planning and evaluation infrastructure that will continue to serve it well in the years to come despite the significant budget cuts it is about to face. Communication and transparency are high priorities of SCSU's administration and will continue to be critical for the university to weather the challenges to come. Town hall meetings, presidential dialogues, and other communication venues are important to provide information as well as receive feedback and ideas from the university community. The annual spending plan will continue to be constructed based on the priorities of the university's strategic plan and the guiding principles.
